Rifts NA and the usefullness of AIRPOWER......

[Blue_Lion]

One thing overlooked in the missiles vs aircraft discussion is that the CS does have a "Stealth VTOL Jet Fighter" (CWC p176) that can "slip through enemy radar even at medium to high altitudes."

It's an outlier compared to other Rifts aircraft, but it does provide the CS a distinct advantage.

The jet you mention is one of several CS stealth air craft and it does give them an advantage. The problem is that jet does not list the stats for stealth like other stealth air craft. see pg 89 of CS navy shriek.

I never claimed air power did not exist just that with the lack of need of special anti air ground units, the affect of many of them is reduced.

[eliakon]

One thing overlooked in the missiles vs aircraft discussion is that the CS does have a "Stealth VTOL Jet Fighter" (CWC p176) that can "slip through enemy radar even at medium to high altitudes."

It's an outlier compared to other Rifts aircraft, but it does provide the CS a distinct advantage.

The jet you mention is one of several CS stealth air craft and it does give them an advantage. The problem is that jet does not list the stats for stealth like other stealth air craft. see pg 89 of CS navy shriek.

I never claimed air power did not exist just that with the lack of need of special anti air ground units, the affect of many of them is reduced.

Wouldn't the lack of specialized AA units make it MORE useful rather then less useful?

Air craft have speed advantages, avoid many of the dangers nearer to the surface, get to use the insanely favorable bombing rules, are basically immune to attack from anything other than other aircraft and missiles, and require virtually no special infrastructure to incorporate to any faction with even the most rudimentary of technology.

I am really having a hard time seeing what the possible down sides here are...
...well unless your the GM. Then its a nightmare since you basically have super fast, ultra-secure transportation and that eliminates a ton of adventure possibilities and tends to turn things into "Okay, so you arrive at the dungeon..."

[dreicunan]

Fill the dungeons with extra adventure opportunities.

[Blue_Lion]

One thing overlooked in the missiles vs aircraft discussion is that the CS does have a "Stealth VTOL Jet Fighter" (CWC p176) that can "slip through enemy radar even at medium to high altitudes."

It's an outlier compared to other Rifts aircraft, but it does provide the CS a distinct advantage.

The jet you mention is one of several CS stealth air craft and it does give them an advantage. The problem is that jet does not list the stats for stealth like other stealth air craft. see pg 89 of CS navy shriek.

I never claimed air power did not exist just that with the lack of need of special anti air ground units, the affect of many of them is reduced.

Wouldn't the lack of specialized AA units make it MORE useful rather then less useful?

Air craft have speed advantages, avoid many of the dangers nearer to the surface, get to use the insanely favorable bombing rules, are basically immune to attack from anything other than other aircraft and missiles, and require virtually no special infrastructure to incorporate to any faction with even the most rudimentary of technology.

I am really having a hard time seeing what the possible down sides here are...
...well unless your the GM. Then its a nightmare since you basically have super fast, ultra-secure transportation and that eliminates a ton of adventure possibilities and tends to turn things into "Okay, so you arrive at the dungeon..."

You missed the point. They do not need specelized aa. Every robot, pa and even tanks has air detection radar and nearly every unit is effective anti air.

[eliakon]

One thing overlooked in the missiles vs aircraft discussion is that the CS does have a "Stealth VTOL Jet Fighter" (CWC p176) that can "slip through enemy radar even at medium to high altitudes."

It's an outlier compared to other Rifts aircraft, but it does provide the CS a distinct advantage.

The jet you mention is one of several CS stealth air craft and it does give them an advantage. The problem is that jet does not list the stats for stealth like other stealth air craft. see pg 89 of CS navy shriek.

I never claimed air power did not exist just that with the lack of need of special anti air ground units, the affect of many of them is reduced.

Wouldn't the lack of specialized AA units make it MORE useful rather then less useful?

Air craft have speed advantages, avoid many of the dangers nearer to the surface, get to use the insanely favorable bombing rules, are basically immune to attack from anything other than other aircraft and missiles, and require virtually no special infrastructure to incorporate to any faction with even the most rudimentary of technology.

I am really having a hard time seeing what the possible down sides here are...
...well unless your the GM. Then its a nightmare since you basically have super fast, ultra-secure transportation and that eliminates a ton of adventure possibilities and tends to turn things into "Okay, so you arrive at the dungeon..."

You missed the point. They do not need specelized aa. Every robot, pa and even tanks has air detection radar and nearly every unit is effective anti air.

Unless the unit flies (in which case it IS air)
or the unit is packing MRMs (which is not exactly standard issue...)
Then no, it is not AA
Since "can detect" does you no good if you can't engage.
And most weapons have ranges of 2-5k feet and most aircraft have altitudes of 10k+

[Axelmania]

Minis can hit 5280 altitude. Shorts can go up to 5 mi so 26,400 altitude.

[Mack]

Minis can hit 5280 altitude. Shorts can go up to 5 mi so 26,400 altitude.

Only if it's going straight up with no horizontal component.

[eliakon]

Minis can hit 5280 altitude. Shorts can go up to 5 mi so 26,400 altitude.

Only if it's going straight up with no horizontal component.

There are two issues here.
The first is as Mack pointed out that you need to account for the fact that it will be pretty rare for an aircraft to fly directly overhead of your AA position meaning that you will usually need to account for horizontal distance.

The second issue is that of speed.
if your target has a speed greater than 450 there go fragmentation SRMs
501 there go HE, Fragmentation Minis and HE and Plasma SRM
651 and you lose the AP SRM

So you might be able to use a Mini-Missile.
IF you are directly underneath the target AND if your target doesn't fly at 5,300' (I can't think of a SINGLE reason why anyone wouldn't do this...)

SRMs might work. If your shooting at a plane in the under 500 MPH range, AND your close enough to the flight path that your offset doesn't cause you be out of range. (HE medium, Fragmentation and Plasma SRMs have only 3 mile range too)

[Blue_Lion]

One thing overlooked in the missiles vs aircraft discussion is that the CS does have a "Stealth VTOL Jet Fighter" (CWC p176) that can "slip through enemy radar even at medium to high altitudes."

It's an outlier compared to other Rifts aircraft, but it does provide the CS a distinct advantage.

The jet you mention is one of several CS stealth air craft and it does give them an advantage. The problem is that jet does not list the stats for stealth like other stealth air craft. see pg 89 of CS navy shriek.

I never claimed air power did not exist just that with the lack of need of special anti air ground units, the affect of many of them is reduced.

Wouldn't the lack of specialized AA units make it MORE useful rather then less useful?

Air craft have speed advantages, avoid many of the dangers nearer to the surface, get to use the insanely favorable bombing rules, are basically immune to attack from anything other than other aircraft and missiles, and require virtually no special infrastructure to incorporate to any faction with even the most rudimentary of technology.

I am really having a hard time seeing what the possible down sides here are...
...well unless your the GM. Then its a nightmare since you basically have super fast, ultra-secure transportation and that eliminates a ton of adventure possibilities and tends to turn things into "Okay, so you arrive at the dungeon..."

You missed the point. They do not need specelized aa. Every robot, pa and even tanks has air detection radar and nearly every unit is effective anti air.

Unless the unit flies (in which case it IS air)
or the unit is packing MRMs (which is not exactly standard issue...)
Then no, it is not AA
Since "can detect" does you no good if you can't engage.
And most weapons have ranges of 2-5k feet and most aircraft have altitudes of 10k+

Again you have the wrong point. A unit does not need to be able to shoot high flying aircraft to be anti air, just be effective against any aircraft in range. Most rifts air craft lack anything to help them find ground targets so you will not be able to easily locate the PA (or other ground units) while high flying that can detect you and called in for the forward LRM or MRM to shoot you down. Many heavy combat vehicles and bots have MRM,. Most units can detect aircraft miles away.

Any city in Rifts will likely have access to mobile units with MRM as well as LRM. This means they can create a blanket defense net to cover their whole territory. With PA acting as early detection net as well as striking down low flying air craft. A city will likly have hundreds or more of air detection radar.

So use of medium or high flying air craft strikes for most nations will be easily detected and then shot down. As can MRM/LRM strikes against the city.
Low flying air craft can be engaged by every unit in the field that can detect it when it comes into range of ground units can be engaged.

So there is no need for dedicated anti air units as your normal units will limit the effectiveness of air power.
Ground units(for most) have a better chance of getting close attacking and getting back home.

Speed would only matter if you are traveling away from the missile. It is easy for ground units to hide and shoot from different directions.


Bandit camps may lack missiles that have the range and would be easy targets. But tech or magic using nation is well defended against.

Magic has a spell that can stop air travel with a TW flare version being on the books for 10K.

[eliakon]

Again you have the wrong point. A unit does not need to be able to shoot high flying aircraft to be anti air, just be effective against any aircraft in range. Most rifts air craft lack anything to help them find ground targets so you will not be able to easily locate the PA (or other ground units) while high flying that can detect you and called in for the forward LRM or MRM to shoot you down. Many heavy combat vehicles and bots have MRM,. Most units can detect aircraft miles away.

Okay lets look at this...
1) it presupposes that the only sensors that anyone are using are the Mk1 eyeball and air search radar.
Which I guess means that no one in your games can do anything but shoot at airplanes?
Everything is loaded down with all sorts of sensors that let you find targets.
If you want to be invisible then you will need more than just waving your arms and saying "nahhh they cant see me"

2) what is this "call in for the forward LRM or MRM" stuff? You have gone from "air flight is dangerous because of random shootings" to "Air power is dangerous because there are organized integrated air defense networks..."
Since only the CS has such a system in canon (though it is possible that MI might have something similar) that is basically the same as saying "flying around the CS might be dangerous"

Any city in Rifts will likely have access to mobile units with MRM as well as LRM. This means they can create a blanket defense net to cover their whole territory. With PA acting as early detection net as well as striking down low flying air craft. A city will likly have hundreds or more of air detection radar.

If by "any city" you mean "Any of the half dozen major national powers" sure. But places like Chi-Town and Merctown are not the norm.
Unless you have been handing out major combat units to everyone and sundry in your game of course... I guess that's an option sure.
But most cities in Rifts are small places with very limited resources. When we read their write ups they DON'T often include mobile units with MRM and LRM.

So use of medium or high flying air craft strikes for most nations will be easily detected and then shot down. As can MRM/LRM strikes against the city.
Low flying air craft can be engaged by every unit in the field that can detect it when it comes into range of ground units can be engaged.

Again if by "most nations" we mean the CS, Quebec and MI sure...
But that sort of leaves ohhhh everyone else out of the loop.

So there is no need for dedicated anti air units as your normal units will limit the effectiveness of air power.
Ground units(for most) will be able to get closer before detection and have a better chance of getting close attacking and getting back home.

Only if you give them some magical "immunity to being noticed" power.

Speed would only matter if you are traveling away from the missile. It is easy for ground units to hide and shoot from different directions.

Sure it is easy to wave a wand and assume that everyone is in perfect position to be ahead of their target.
...
Oh wait. I forgot this was supposed to be a discussion about the actual game not a best case scenario optimized for the defenders to prove that in a perfect case they can do something.

In a real world case your going to have to have your ground forces on the ground in what ever position they are in when you detect the aircraft.
At that time you can then try
1) To decide if the aircraft is something you want to engage.
2) order the nearest unit to engage
3) fire missiles at the aircraft
4) wait and see if your missile volley works
5) rinse and repeat 2-4 until the craft is shot down or leaves your air space
6) hope that you didn't just attack something that wasn't hostile and start a war

So no there are not going to be massive integrated air defense systems shooting down every aircraft they detect just because.
Well I guess a GM could do that if they want to. Its would not be the game as written and would require changing a LOT of the written material but if the GM really disliked aircraft that much they can do it I guess.

Especially since we have to look no further than the books themselves to see that none of this actually happens...
...setting up perfect scenarios of what 'could happen in a worst case' is all well and good. but when you have to throw out everything written in the books on the subject and every related subject and rewrite it all to say the exact opposite then its so far past "house rule" that its not even funny anymore.

[Blue_Lion]

I assume that an air craft has the sensors listed as sensors of note in addition to radar. What sensor are they listed as having to see people on the ground thousands of feet away through trees while traveling 100s of MPH? Targeting computers are typically linked to an active sensor like radar, most air craft have no listed optics. (Juicer uprising highlighted this fact with the ambush of CS air transports by people on the ground.)

Does not require a immune to be notice, standard rifts radar does not track targets less than a set distance from the ground. So you will not detect ground units miles away, because your radar does not track them. So while you can detect air craft with radar 10s of miles away you can not detect them.

There is no magic ability but a limit of rifts radar on ground.

It was not optimized for the defenders and how you use team work to swarm a target from multiple positions when using short ranged AA weapons. It is historic and currant use of short range AA, what you described is use of long range anti air.(A-10s have been engaged by over 10 positions at once.) Ground forces in rifts would have positions and patrols throughout your territory. Fast moving high fliers get shot down by long range, slower moving low flying graft would likely enter an area inside the patrol zones. Trying to out range one position allows them to drive you between multiple units.



When a combat air craft enters your air space the air craft committed an act of war. That is real life you are justified shooting it down once it is your air space. Shooting down the air craft is not an act of war in that case it is a act of self defense. Rifts radar can identify the type of air craft being detected.

(Most nations is most city states in rifts, not just the big ones.)

[Axelmania]

Missiles only need to be faster than aircraft to hit them if shooting from dogtail position. If shooting to intercept where they are headed it is possible for a missile to intercept. We usually don't know how quickly jets.can decelerate or change directions.

[Blue_Lion]

Missiles only need to be faster than aircraft to hit them if shooting from dogtail position. If shooting to intercept where they are headed it is possible for a missile to intercept. We usually don't know how quickly jets.can decelerate or change directions.

When I tried to point that out some one claimed I was creating an situation optimised for defenders even though I was describing how short range aa is used.

[Shark_Force]

yeah, i don't think there's too many militaries that are going to invest too heavily in a system that only works under absolutely ideal conditions. if your plan calls for the enemy to cooperate with you killing them, it probably needs more work.

and i believe the mechanism that allows you to detect incoming ground forces is primarily the fact that they're going to be limited in their avenues of approach for most vehicles, combined with patrols and probably a variety of other tools. otherwise known as "exactly the way militaries do it today".

[boring7]

That's ONE interpretation. Another is that the bombs have a range of one half-mile (2640 feet), both vertical and horizontal distance, and so they're still well within the 4000 foot range of most vehicle-mounted guns. Oh sure you can cry "realism" against bombs just NOT WORKING from high-altitude deployment, but then Aunt Phyllis will point out the problems of spotting the theoretical bandit camp in the first place.

And it's still a bit odd to use most of the missile rules for bombs but NOT use the rules that let you shoot missiles down.

[eliakon]

That's ONE interpretation. Another is that the bombs have a range of one half-mile (2640 feet), both vertical and horizontal distance, and so they're still well within the 4000 foot range of most vehicle-mounted guns. Oh sure you can cry "realism" against bombs just NOT WORKING from high-altitude deployment, but then Aunt Phyllis will point out the problems of spotting the theoretical bandit camp in the first place.

And it's still a bit odd to use most of the missile rules for bombs but NOT use the rules that let you shoot missiles down.

Flip that question...
...do you allow your players to use the missile rules to shoot down bullets?
Arrows?
Grenades?
Spells?
Anything and everything else that flies?

Especially since Bombs do not use the missile rules but the ranged combat rules which don't allow you to shoot things down.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

yeah, i don't think there's too many militaries that are going to invest too heavily in a system that only works under absolutely ideal conditions. if your plan calls for the enemy to cooperate with you killing them, it probably needs more work.

and i believe the mechanism that allows you to detect incoming ground forces is primarily the fact that they're going to be limited in their avenues of approach for most vehicles, combined with patrols and probably a variety of other tools. otherwise known as "exactly the way militaries do it today".

there are also some sensor systems available if you have time to deploy them (ground sensors, laser fencing, that kind of thing - most of them are in RMB/RUE and Merc Ops

But for the most part, yeah. Patrols and the Mark-1 Eyeball are your best bet.

[eliakon]

I assume that an air craft has the sensors listed as sensors of note in addition to radar. What sensor are they listed as having to see people on the ground thousands of feet away through trees while traveling 100s of MPH? Targeting computers are typically linked to an active sensor like radar, most air craft have no listed optics. (Juicer uprising highlighted this fact with the ambush of CS air transports by people on the ground.)

Does not require a immune to be notice, standard rifts radar does not track targets less than a set distance from the ground. So you will not detect ground units miles away, because your radar does not track them. So while you can detect air craft with radar 10s of miles away you can not detect them.

There is no magic ability but a limit of rifts radar on ground.

Interesting.
So you are telling me that by the rules there is no way to actually shoot targets on the ground with the various weapon systems in the game.
Facinating.
I am relieved to know that Missiles can not be used against anything that is not flying. Ever.
And that apparently no one is able to find targets.

Because apparently the only way that anything can be targeted, at all, is by air-search radar.

So either weapons can not be used by anyone, at all...
...or everyone can use them.

It was not optimized for the defenders and how you use team work to swarm a target from multiple positions when using short ranged AA weapons. It is historic and currant use of short range AA, what you described is use of long range anti air.(A-10s have been engaged by over 10 positions at once.) Ground forces in rifts would have positions and patrols throughout your territory. Fast moving high fliers get shot down by long range, slower moving low flying graft would likely enter an area inside the patrol zones. Trying to out range one position allows them to drive you between multiple units.

It is also not at all like anything that anyone other than 2-3 people on the entire continent have...
... the "historic" useage your citing is that of major modern nations, in modern conditions with modern doctrines and supply chains...
...or "not at all like rifts"
This is not a game of vast nations with deep borders. Its a place of no-mans lands and vest pocket empires.
This is not a place where there are a lot of heavy built up integrated military defense complexes other than a few major world powers.

When a combat air craft enters your air space the air craft committed an act of war.

Errr not in our world, just in the movies.
In the real world air space (which is comes in several 'flavors') is pretty open for a lot of kinds of air traffic.
There are complex proticolls on who can do what where...
...that are based on decades of treaties. Treaties that do not exist on Rifts.

That is real life you are justified shooting it down once it is your air space. Shooting down the air craft is not an act of war in that case it is a act of self defense.

Again not in real life...
In the Real World shooting down an aircraft IS an act of war. Even if it is in your airspace.
And justification is pretty complex, again depending on who flew what where, what warnings were issued to who, what the force statuses of the various nations are, what the treaties of those nations are...
Its not some 80's action movie where the bad guy flies over the red line and gets shot down and everyone gets to party and laugh at the bad guy commander who fumes that he can't do anything about it.
And again this is Rifts, not some 80s movie nor is it our world
There is no "Controlled air space" Other than the CS and maybe MI. No one is controlling huge areas of territory with defense in depth and overlapping air defense systems...
Heck most places cant even control enough territory to stop someone from firing an MRM from one side of their territory to the other let alone some sort of imaginary 'shoot to kill buffer zone'

Rifts radar can identify the type of air craft being detected.

Source? Because "track targets" is not "identify the aircraft specifically"

(Most nations is most city states in rifts, not just the big ones.)

Um no.
I challenge you to provide the book citations for the military forces of any city in rifts that includes these forces your talking about.

[eliakon]

yeah, i don't think there's too many militaries that are going to invest too heavily in a system that only works under absolutely ideal conditions. if your plan calls for the enemy to cooperate with you killing them, it probably needs more work.

and i believe the mechanism that allows you to detect incoming ground forces is primarily the fact that they're going to be limited in their avenues of approach for most vehicles, combined with patrols and probably a variety of other tools. otherwise known as "exactly the way militaries do it today".

there are also some sensor systems available if you have time to deploy them (ground sensors, laser fencing, that kind of thing - most of them are in RMB/RUE and Merc Ops

But for the most part, yeah. Patrols and the Mark-1 Eyeball are your best bet.

Why would vehicles be limited in their avenues of approach?
I mean unless your hiding out in a forest of MDC trees, or have been putting your engineers to work building MDC barricades there isn't much that is going to stop even a light combat vehicle. (Light vehicle rams do what? 1d4 MDC? your going to toothpick your way through a forest)

[Shark_Force]

Why would vehicles be limited in their avenues of approach?
I mean unless your hiding out in a forest of MDC trees, or have been putting your engineers to work building MDC barricades there isn't much that is going to stop even a light combat vehicle. (Light vehicle rams do what? 1d4 MDC? your going to toothpick your way through a forest)

sure, you can do that.

but it becomes pretty obvious how you're going to be detected at that point. you're about as stealthy as a herd of stampeding buffalo.

also, just because you can smash trees, doesn't mean you aren't going to be massively slowed down. just because the tree was smashed, doesn't mean you can't get stuck on the stump, or that when the trunk smashes down on your vehicle that you can drive around with a few extra tons of weight no problem. also, a vehicle ram does 1d4 MD... when you're moving fast enough. which you probably won't be for long, as i've noted.

so you'll be a slow-moving, easily-detected target. frankly, my advice is that you should just get out and walk. you'll still be slow (and you'll still probably get picked up by patrols), but at least it won't be basically impossible for you to travel around unnoticed.

though of course, you'll also be orders of magnitude slower in arriving at your destination than someone would have been had they just flown.

[boring7]

That's ONE interpretation. Another is that the bombs have a range of one half-mile (2640 feet), both vertical and horizontal distance, and so they're still well within the 4000 foot range of most vehicle-mounted guns. Oh sure you can cry "realism" against bombs just NOT WORKING from high-altitude deployment, but then Aunt Phyllis will point out the problems of spotting the theoretical bandit camp in the first place.

And it's still a bit odd to use most of the missile rules for bombs but NOT use the rules that let you shoot missiles down.

Flip that question...
...do you allow your players to use the missile rules to shoot down bullets?
Arrows?
Grenades?
Spells?
Anything and everything else that flies?

Especially since Bombs do not use the missile rules but the ranged combat rules which don't allow you to shoot things down.

But they *do*. The only reference to bombs cited (Mercenaries 114-115) says "as missiles" for several important parts of the stat block. It never mentions the ranged combat rules. It mentions very few rules at all; for example it doesn't even make clear if the "auto-hit/+6" refers to all bombs or only the smart bombs.

[Axelmania]

I would theoretically let any projectile slower than the fastest missile be shot down.

Missiles are pretty big though so there should be steep penalties for targeting smaller stuff.

Come to think of it... why is the size difference between mini/short/med/long not taken into account for the difficulty of hitting them?

Bigger missiles tend to go faster so they will probably end up harder to hit.

[Library Ogre]

So, what do you think would be some effective counters to the kind of airpower that can be mustered in the setting?

[Eagle]

I had a nice long post typed, but then the website logged me out and I lost it. So I'll just sum up what I had written earlier.

People in Rifts don't use airplanes much. We don't know exactly why, we just know that they don't. Since we know the end result (they don't use them), then we are left to come up with the reasons why. Any explanation we decide on will just be fan speculation, but that's all we've got. Any theory that says "airplanes are awesome, they should totally use them all the time" is flawed, because we know that they don't use them all the time. Therefore we're just looking for something semi-plausible that makes airplanes impractical for Rifts. Anything else doesn't fit with the known state of the world.

Given the limited examples of planes in Rifts, we can probably take some real world trends and extrapolate those into the fictional world.

--Planes are expensive, much more expensive than ground vehicles.
--Planes are fragile. You can't armor them nearly as well as you can ground vehicles.
--Operating a plane takes specialized training. Flying a plane is a lot harder than driving a car.
--Planes require a certain level of economic prosperity before they become viable for travel.
--Mechanical failures in planes result in worse outcomes than mechanical failures in ground vehicles. It's the difference between stopping and crashing.

These are real world truths about airplanes that I think would also be true in Rifts. Given that info, most towns and cities probably aren't big enough to maintain an air fleet. Those that are big enough, may not have that many trading partners of equal size to justify it. People fly between big cities, they don't fly between little towns unless there are very specific economic conditions that justify it.

So that takes care of civilian travel. What about military use?

Well the Coalition does maintain a force of bombers and fighters. Apparently a few other nations do as well. But now that you're talking about planes that can drop tons of bombs, now they become very high value targets. Now it's worth shooting those medium range missiles at them, because you could be preventing an attack that levels half your town.

[Eagle]

So, what do you think would be some effective counters to the kind of airpower that can be mustered in the setting?

Military planes would be a target for any opposing military group. If you can load a plane down with bombs, and threaten enemy territory, then everybody who doesn't like you will be on the lookout for your planes. In real life, bombers fly over friendly countries and empty ocean for as long as possible before entering enemy airspace, dropping their payloads, and then leaving. In Rifts, the whole planet is potentially "enemy airspace", because it's a crazy sci-fi/fantasy wilderness.

Civilian planes, it would depend on their size. A mega-damage 747 taking off from Chi-Town and landing in Berlin is not going to have many things that can target it. It will fly as high as possible, as fast as possible, over the least populated route that it can find. It will travel through controlled territory during takeoff and landing, when it is most vulnerable. Can they be shot down? Sure. But the likelihood of any individual plane being attacked would be relatively low. It would take a concerted effort by a well-equipped force to bring down that target. The biggest problem with our MD 747 is that there aren't that many places for it to go.

Small puddle jumpers and other civilian planes that could operate out of smaller cities are vulnerable to all kinds of attacks. Skycycles, flying power armor, air elementals, a cleverly placed SRM launcher, these are all serious threats to small planes. Some guy in a black market SAMAS suit can set up in the wilderness a few miles from the airport, near the normal flight path of planes approaching or leaving the runway. As they're taking off or landing, they won't be going full speed, and they'll be at low altitude. He can zip over there and gun the thing down fairly easily. You don't have to be after salvage, you just send them a demand letter. "Give me this much money or I'll keep destroying your planes."

Smaller airports and planes would be very vulnerable in the Rifts setting.

[eliakon]

I had a nice long post typed, but then the website logged me out and I lost it. So I'll just sum up what I had written earlier.

People in Rifts don't use airplanes much. We don't know exactly why, we just know that they don't. Since we know the end result (they don't use them), then we are left to come up with the reasons why. Any explanation we decide on will just be fan speculation, but that's all we've got. Any theory that says "airplanes are awesome, they should totally use them all the time" is flawed, because we know that they don't use them all the time. Therefore we're just looking for something semi-plausible that makes airplanes impractical for Rifts. Anything else doesn't fit with the known state of the world.

Hence my original statement that the reason that they are not used is simply "Because the plot says so"

Given the limited examples of planes in Rifts, we can probably take some real world trends and extrapolate those into the fictional world.

--Planes are expensive, much more expensive than ground vehicles.
--Planes are fragile. You can't armor them nearly as well as you can ground vehicles.
--Operating a plane takes specialized training. Flying a plane is a lot harder than driving a car.
--Planes require a certain level of economic prosperity before they become viable for travel.

These three are all inherently not supported by the game setting. The planes in the books are neither more expensive nor less armored and the skill is no harder to get than any other piloting skill

--Mechanical failures in planes result in worse outcomes than mechanical failures in ground vehicles. It's the difference between stopping and crashing.

This would almost be believable...
...if it were not for the millions of flying power armor in use and the constant proliferation of aircraft.

These are real world truths about airplanes that I think would also be true in Rifts. Given that info, most towns and cities probably aren't big enough to maintain an air fleet.

No one is maintaining any ground fleets either so the lack of an air fleet isn't a mystery.
It is quite simply that there is "no mass transit systems. Period" Rifts is not a modern high tech world.

Those that are big enough, may not have that many trading partners of equal size to justify it. People fly between big cities, they don't fly between little towns unless there are very specific economic conditions that justify it.

The known airfleets on North America support this.
Lets see...
An Airline at Merctown
NG runs an air-shipping system
there are bush pilots all through out MI and the surrounding area

So that takes care of civilian travel. What about military use?

Well the Coalition does maintain a force of bombers and fighters. Apparently a few other nations do as well. But now that you're talking about planes that can drop tons of bombs, now they become very high value targets. Now it's worth shooting those medium range missiles at them, because you could be preventing an attack that levels half your town.

Which still doesn't solve the problem of depth.
Unless your one of the few giant Kingdoms on North America by the time an aircraft is in your 'airspace' it is already with in attack range.
And no one other than the CS is powerful enough to simply attack anything and everything that gets with in a few dozen miles of their nation since that is how you end up a smoking crater remembered only as a footnote in history.

[eliakon]

That's ONE interpretation. Another is that the bombs have a range of one half-mile (2640 feet), both vertical and horizontal distance, and so they're still well within the 4000 foot range of most vehicle-mounted guns. Oh sure you can cry "realism" against bombs just NOT WORKING from high-altitude deployment, but then Aunt Phyllis will point out the problems of spotting the theoretical bandit camp in the first place.

And it's still a bit odd to use most of the missile rules for bombs but NOT use the rules that let you shoot missiles down.

Flip that question...
...do you allow your players to use the missile rules to shoot down bullets?
Arrows?
Grenades?
Spells?
Anything and everything else that flies?

Especially since Bombs do not use the missile rules but the ranged combat rules which don't allow you to shoot things down.

But they *do*. The only reference to bombs cited (Mercenaries 114-115) says "as missiles" for several important parts of the stat block. It never mentions the ranged combat rules. It mentions very few rules at all; for example it doesn't even make clear if the "auto-hit/+6" refers to all bombs or only the smart bombs.

Stat Block
Primary Purpose
Secondary Puropose
Mega-Damage: Varies with bomb type; same types and damages as the long-range missiles, but triple the blast radius.
Rate of Fire: a volley of 10,20,30 bombs can be dropped once per melee round
Payload: 200 heavy bombs (same types and damages as long-range missiles
Note: Hitting a large stationary target....is automatic. To hit a moving target, roll to strike (+6 per bomb), the entire bomb volley can strike one target or each can veer away to hit a different target.

Lets see...
So we are refered to the missile damage table to find out how big our boom is.
But for strike we are told to
Roll a strike.
But at +6 to strike. Note that Missile combat does NOT grant a strike bonus
Note that we are not told that we use the automatic 4+ hit rule of Missiles
Note that they do not use the missile volley rules where an entire volley hits or misses one target. But instead they use their own rules on what they can target...

So...
They do not use the missile strike rules, they do not use the missile volley rules, they do not appear to use the missile "can not dodge rules" (since there is nothing in the 'veer away' section about 'if you keep 4 on one target it can not dodge' or anything)...
...but we are to assume that they are really using the missile rules because even though they do not use any part of the missile rules at all they use the same damage as a missile... and thus we should assume that all the unique downsides of the missile rules should apply to them?

Again I ask.
Do you allow your players to shoot down bullets, arrows and hand-grenades?

[Shark_Force]

with proper knowledge, good tools, and materials that are literally garbage (though i understand the engine was not... then again, it isn't like rifts earth doesn't have engines), here is what you can come up with, given 20 hours (over the course of 2 days, includes any and all breaks) and 4 reasonably skilled people per team (no assembly lines, no factories) going from a design to flight test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ExnBCpEWI

now, to make an f-16 or something, sure you're not gonna see those flying all over the place. but basic aircraft? yeah, it ain't gonna be that hard.

(oh, and losing power can also just mean you need to glide to a landing... depending on design, you may be able to go quite far without power).

so probably nobody has a huge airforce of modern fighter jets (except the CS, and even they have kinda chosen a different route mostly). i don't think anyone has been saying they would expect that in the setting. but transport aircraft, built with powerful engines and based on models that we already know work? they should be fairly common. and, given it's rifts, while most are probably not really built for combat, i'd be pretty surprised if most didn't have at least the option of one or two gun mounts or mini-missile launchers.

[Axelmania]

My theory is that there are roving entities in the higher atmosphere who hate planes and destroy them.

[boring7]

That's ONE interpretation. Another is that the bombs have a range of one half-mile (2640 feet), both vertical and horizontal distance, and so they're still well within the 4000 foot range of most vehicle-mounted guns. Oh sure you can cry "realism" against bombs just NOT WORKING from high-altitude deployment, but then Aunt Phyllis will point out the problems of spotting the theoretical bandit camp in the first place.

And it's still a bit odd to use most of the missile rules for bombs but NOT use the rules that let you shoot missiles down.

Flip that question...
...do you allow your players to use the missile rules to shoot down bullets?
Arrows?
Grenades?
Spells?
Anything and everything else that flies?

Especially since Bombs do not use the missile rules but the ranged combat rules which don't allow you to shoot things down.

But they *do*. The only reference to bombs cited (Mercenaries 114-115) says "as missiles" for several important parts of the stat block. It never mentions the ranged combat rules. It mentions very few rules at all; for example it doesn't even make clear if the "auto-hit/+6" refers to all bombs or only the smart bombs.

Stat Block
Primary Purpose
Secondary Puropose
Mega-Damage: Varies with bomb type; same types and damages as the long-range missiles, but triple the blast radius.
Rate of Fire: a volley of 10,20,30 bombs can be dropped once per melee round
Payload: 200 heavy bombs (same types and damages as long-range missiles
Note: Hitting a large stationary target....is automatic. To hit a moving target, roll to strike (+6 per bomb), the entire bomb volley can strike one target or each can veer away to hit a different target.

Lets see...
So we are refered to the missile damage table to find out how big our boom is.
But for strike we are told to
Roll a strike.
But at +6 to strike. Note that Missile combat does NOT grant a strike bonus
Note that we are not told that we use the automatic 4+ hit rule of Missiles
Note that they do not use the missile volley rules where an entire volley hits or misses one target. But instead they use their own rules on what they can target...

So...
They do not use the missile strike rules, they do not use the missile volley rules, they do not appear to use the missile "can not dodge rules" (since there is nothing in the 'veer away' section about 'if you keep 4 on one target it can not dodge' or anything)...
...but we are to assume that they are really using the missile rules because even though they do not use any part of the missile rules at all they use the same damage as a missile... and thus we should assume that all the unique downsides of the missile rules should apply to them?

Again I ask.
Do you allow your players to shoot down bullets, arrows and hand-grenades?

At no point does any of that fit with or reference to regular ranged attack rules either.

And you're continuing to throw an insulting straw-man in my face. So good job there.

[Eagle]

And you're continuing to throw an insulting straw-man in my face. So good job there.

Well, you just have to look and see who you're responding to. That's what he does anytime you disagree with him.

Warning: Let's keep to the topic at hand, and avoid getting personal. Mack

[Library Ogre]

My theory is that there are roving entities in the higher atmosphere who hate planes and destroy them.

"See, occasionally the AIs controlling the killer satellites get BORED..."

Actually, that could be a neat thing. ARCHIE actually controls the killer satellites, and uses them as a deus ex machina to discourage high-altitude bombers and the like. It's not a perfect net, but it's often enough that people don't try that often. A few shades of Harlan's World, but, hey.

[eliakon]

Spoiler:

Flip that question...
...do you allow your players to use the missile rules to shoot down bullets?
Arrows?
Grenades?
Spells?
Anything and everything else that flies?

Especially since Bombs do not use the missile rules but the ranged combat rules which don't allow you to shoot things down.

But they *do*. The only reference to bombs cited (Mercenaries 114-115) says "as missiles" for several important parts of the stat block. It never mentions the ranged combat rules. It mentions very few rules at all; for example it doesn't even make clear if the "auto-hit/+6" refers to all bombs or only the smart bombs.

Stat Block
Primary Purpose
Secondary Puropose
Mega-Damage: Varies with bomb type; same types and damages as the long-range missiles, but triple the blast radius.
Rate of Fire: a volley of 10,20,30 bombs can be dropped once per melee round
Payload: 200 heavy bombs (same types and damages as long-range missiles
Note: Hitting a large stationary target....is automatic. To hit a moving target, roll to strike (+6 per bomb), the entire bomb volley can strike one target or each can veer away to hit a different target.

Lets see...
So we are refered to the missile damage table to find out how big our boom is.
But for strike we are told to
Roll a strike.
But at +6 to strike. Note that Missile combat does NOT grant a strike bonus
Note that we are not told that we use the automatic 4+ hit rule of Missiles
Note that they do not use the missile volley rules where an entire volley hits or misses one target. But instead they use their own rules on what they can target...

So...
They do not use the missile strike rules, they do not use the missile volley rules, they do not appear to use the missile "can not dodge rules" (since there is nothing in the 'veer away' section about 'if you keep 4 on one target it can not dodge' or anything)...
...but we are to assume that they are really using the missile rules because even though they do not use any part of the missile rules at all they use the same damage as a missile... and thus we should assume that all the unique downsides of the missile rules should apply to them?Again I ask.
Do you allow your players to shoot down bullets, arrows and hand-grenades?

At no point does any of that fit with or reference to regular ranged attack rules either.

And you're continuing to throw an insulting straw-man in my face. So good job there.

Hmmm
1) So that suggests then that either it follows its OWN rules (which are not the missile rules
or that
2) it is a variation of the normal ranged rules since they cover...all forms of ranged combat that are not missiles.
I do not see any way, shape or form to get "this is the missile rules" out of it though.
I, personally don't see how this is NOT normal ranged combat
There can be an automatic hit, in which case you don't roll go directly to damage do not pass go do not collect 200 credits.
There can be a strike roll. If there is a strike roll you roll d20+6. There is no target number listed... but since this is ranged combat the target would be 8. Apply any additional bonuses and penalties that apply to this situation.
If the result is an 8+ you hit your target. Roll damage.
Due to the specific weapon you are using your weapon is allowed to make a weapon specific special attack (different bombs can go after different targets). this is really no different than the various other special attacks that some other weapons get (such as flame throwers or scatter guns or machineguns or...) that also do not exactly follow the normal ranged combat rules but instead have a slight variation... but do not have their own unique sub rule set (which would result in things like changing core bonuses or whatnot)


And no, it is not an "insulting straw-man" it is a deadly serious question.
The missile rules allow for missiles to be shot down. But that is a feature of the missile rules and only applies to missiles.
Thus if bombs are NOT missiles and bombs do NOT use the missile rules, the only way that they too can be shot down is if the rule is being generalized to other forms of ranged combat.
Which brings us back to the question...
Why should we privilege some attacks but not others? Why is it easier to shoot down a bomb moving near or at the speed of sound than a grenade moving 10 or so MPH?
To make it even more explicitly clear... why are we extending the vulnerability of one specific form of combat to other forms of combat?
It is not a strawman, it is about as core a germane question as it gets. (and for the record a 'strawman' would be a superficially similar yet much easier to defeat argument that I would then shoot down to 'prove' your argument false.)

[glitterboy2098]

My theory is that there are roving entities in the higher atmosphere who hate planes and destroy them.

"See, occasionally the AIs controlling the killer satellites get BORED..."

Actually, that could be a neat thing. ARCHIE actually controls the killer satellites, and uses them as a deus ex machina to discourage high-altitude bombers and the like. It's not a perfect net, but it's often enough that people don't try that often. A few shades of Harlan's World, but, hey.

the killer sats don't have the range needed in most cases, to reach any lower than the highest upper atmosphere.

though reentring debris from the CODF would make flying in the stratosphere rather hairy. (would explain the XM-288's 100,000 artificial safe flight ceiling. above that height your odds of being hit by micrometeors would be fairly high. wouldn't be enough to destroy a plane, but having to repair one all the time would be a pain. and the XM-288 could probably do the whole sub-orbital exo-atmospheric thing, which would attract fire from the kill sats if it tried it)


and ARCHIE only has the one sattelite.. and from all accounts, the orbitals could care less about aircraft near the surface. they're only worried about stuff leaving the atmosphere.

[Blue_Lion]

My favorite false claim electron is the claim that radar is not identifying what it is tracking when every radar in rifts has lines like this RUE PG 364 under Radar large miltiary- is listed as tracking 300 targets and identify 1000.(it is almost like you tried to sound like you addressed the point when you never did just implied that it is not identifying the target.)
PG 271 under standard PA features "2 Can identify and track 72 targets simultaneously at a range of 40 miles."

(I find the idea that I need to provide citations that a tech using nation has access to PA and missile beyond absurd.) Juicer uprising 104. Kingsdale a small city state in not a super power, -Vehicles include a dozen medium and heavy Iron Heart tanks (see Rifts Mercenaries), over 1200 motorcycles, 600 hover vehicles, a small air squadron of some 24 fighter aircraft, 300 power armor suits and 50 giant robot vehicles (mostly Northern Gun product).
the city guard The militia has another Robot Squadron (25 robots) and a Power Armor Division (30 suits), mostly relying on Northern Gun models.

-So let me ask this do you have any text that states a full city that uses tech in its defense does not have access to this gear?
-Do you have any system that can detect a ground unit at a range of 40 miles? (as you seam to think a ground unit getting closer than air before detected is some sort of magic.)
You seam to be using insulting dismissive language in this and not adressing points and trying get the other side to provide evidence while making unsupported statemens you prove nothing of substance to counter.

[SlaytheDragon]

Who needs an airplane when you have a suit of power armor, slightly larger than a man that are vastly more maneuverable than any actual airplane? With VTOL capabilities, a load of armaments from mini-missiles to rail guns, and the fact that a slightly larger than man-sized target is already incredibly difficult to hit as it is, let alone in a fixed wing air asset that is unable to make tight turns and can be easily gunned down by a team of SAMAS working together, using fixed wing air assets without already having air superiority is a waste of resources.

I always used airplanes as assets for troops to basically call for fires on enemy positions, much like they're used for today in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. They're literally on scene for minutes, drop their payload, and leave to either return to base or off on another fire mission. They may stay on scene to do recon to get a bird's eye view for the troops on the ground, but their time is limited by fuel and mission priorities.

Given that and how easier it is to fly under radar with a suit of power armor, not to mention even hiding a suit of power armor versus a full on fighter jet, it makes complete sense as to why the CS at least doesn't utilize fixed wing aircraft more even though they have access to them.

Just my two cents.

[Shark_Force]

Who needs an airplane when you have a suit of power armor, slightly larger than a man that are vastly more maneuverable than any actual airplane? With VTOL capabilities, a load of armaments from mini-missiles to rail guns, and the fact that a slightly larger than man-sized target is already incredibly difficult to hit as it is, let alone in a fixed wing air asset that is unable to make tight turns and can be easily gunned down by a team of SAMAS working together, using fixed wing air assets without already having air superiority is a waste of resources.

I always used airplanes as assets for troops to basically call for fires on enemy positions, much like they're used for today in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. They're literally on scene for minutes, drop their payload, and leave to either return to base or off on another fire mission. They may stay on scene to do recon to get a bird's eye view for the troops on the ground, but their time is limited by fuel and mission priorities.

Given that and how easier it is to fly under radar with a suit of power armor, not to mention even hiding a suit of power armor versus a full on fighter jet, it makes complete sense as to why the CS at least doesn't utilize fixed wing aircraft more even though they have access to them.

Just my two cents.

most (all?) flying power armour is extremely expensive. that's why.

you can make a (somewhat less impressive) airplane for a lot less, because they're shaped like a thing that should fly. making a power armour fly is somewhat like making a brick fly, if you decided to use the least aerodynamic orientation possible for the brick. and not the kind of brick with holes in it that would reduce the surface area facing forward, either.

a more reasonable example might be jetpacks, which are also dirt cheap in rifts, and which can be used with any suit of body armour at least.

[ShadowLogan]

Who needs an airplane when you have a suit of power armor, slightly larger than a man that are vastly more maneuverable than any actual airplane? With VTOL capabilities, a load of armaments from mini-missiles to rail guns, and the fact that a slightly larger than man-sized target is already incredibly difficult to hit as it is, let alone in a fixed wing air asset that is unable to make tight turns and can be easily gunned down by a team of SAMAS working together, using fixed wing air assets without already having air superiority is a waste of resources.

Considering that typical Jet Fighters OUT CLASS typical Flying Power Armor in terms of:
A. maximum altitude (SAMAS working together can only take down a Jet Fighter if the pilot flies to low, those suits typically top out at a few thousand feet vs 60,000ft for jets, even with mini-missiles/guns the Jet pilot only has to fly high enough to out range them but can at the same time keep them in range which is doable)
B. out run (Jet Fighters typically can go supersonic, typical flying power armor can't), which also means those PA are going to have to strike at something moving much faster than them imposing penalties to strike potentially
C. weapons performance in terms of range, Jets typically are armed with SRMs and above, plus the typical gun range is between 4-6000ft on a jet, where fPA is more like 2-4000ft typically. Very few flying PA sport SRMs (IINM only maybe 6 PA exist that can even USE SRMs or above AFAIK in Rifts)
D. Weapon Payload. When using Mini-Missiles, most Jet Fighters easily outclass PA in terms of payload as PA at best have 24 mini's IINM (not ruling out rare case of more), but typical jet fighters AFAIK in Rifts pack that in at minimum, if they even bother to sport this class missile.

[SlaytheDragon]

most (all?) flying power armour is extremely expensive. that's why.

you can make a (somewhat less impressive) airplane for a lot less, because they're shaped like a thing that should fly. making a power armour fly is somewhat like making a brick fly, if you decided to use the least aerodynamic orientation possible for the brick. and not the kind of brick with holes in it that would reduce the surface area facing forward, either.

a more reasonable example might be jetpacks, which are also dirt cheap in rifts, and which can be used with any suit of body armour at least.

If you go by the black market costs in the books most flying power armors are actually cheaper than aircraft to buy. Triax's X-10 predator armor costs 1.9 million credits on the black market according to the first sourcebook (pg. 42.), while Iron Heart's Grey Falcon costs 20 million credits. Which would you invest money in? 10 flying power armor that don't require an airfield, along with an air crew to constantly provide maintenance to said air field, or one attack jet that does?

Don't get me wrong there is some expensive power armor out there, but flying power armor is more practical to use, and honestly probably easier to train on. A good air field can also be expensive to maintain.

Considering that typical Jet Fighters OUT CLASS typical Flying Power Armor in terms of:
A. maximum altitude (SAMAS working together can only take down a Jet Fighter if the pilot flies to low, those suits typically top out at a few thousand feet vs 60,000ft for jets, even with mini-missiles/guns the Jet pilot only has to fly high enough to out range them but can at the same time keep them in range which is doable)
B. out run (Jet Fighters typically can go supersonic, typical flying power armor can't), which also means those PA are going to have to strike at something moving much faster than them imposing penalties to strike potentially
C. weapons performance in terms of range, Jets typically are armed with SRMs and above, plus the typical gun range is between 4-6000ft on a jet, where fPA is more like 2-4000ft typically. Very few flying PA sport SRMs (IINM only maybe 6 PA exist that can even USE SRMs or above AFAIK in Rifts)
D. Weapon Payload. When using Mini-Missiles, most Jet Fighters easily outclass PA in terms of payload as PA at best have 24 mini's IINM (not ruling out rare case of more), but typical jet fighters AFAIK in Rifts pack that in at minimum, if they even bother to sport this class missile.

Sure jets are quicker and can fly higher, but I can't land my jet on the side of a mountain without some serious construction. Similarly I can't hide my jet in the woods if I see a dragon flying near and want to avoid it. Power armor is smaller, more maneuverable, and more practical for someone to invest in than actual aircraft and some of them have quite the payload.

Fixed wing aircraft are formidable but they have to use their speed and high flying to there advantage if you are gonna use them, thus why I said them filling more of that close air support role helping infantry take out heavy targets and quickly flying away.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

If you go by the black market costs in the books most flying power armors are actually cheaper than aircraft to buy. Triax's X-10 predator armor costs 1.9 million credits on the black market according to the first sourcebook (pg. 42.), while Iron Heart's Grey Falcon costs 20 million credits. Which would you invest money in? 10 flying power armor that don't require an airfield, along with an air crew to constantly provide maintenance to said air field, or one attack jet that does?

The Grey Falcon doesn't require an airfield. It requires 40ft of clear space. Its VTOL. And it can shoot down all 10 of those Predator's from WELL outside their own engagement range and there's nothing worthwhile they can do about it except die or attempt to run.

Its rather the same argument as "why do giant robots that cost millions exist when power armor".

Different uses, different strengths, different weaknesses.

Both types of flying vehicles have use.

[Shark_Force]

most (all?) flying power armour is extremely expensive. that's why.

you can make a (somewhat less impressive) airplane for a lot less, because they're shaped like a thing that should fly. making a power armour fly is somewhat like making a brick fly, if you decided to use the least aerodynamic orientation possible for the brick. and not the kind of brick with holes in it that would reduce the surface area facing forward, either.

a more reasonable example might be jetpacks, which are also dirt cheap in rifts, and which can be used with any suit of body armour at least.

If you go by the black market costs in the books most flying power armors are actually cheaper than aircraft to buy. Triax's X-10 predator armor costs 1.9 million credits on the black market according to the first sourcebook (pg. 42.), while Iron Heart's Grey Falcon costs 20 million credits. Which would you invest money in? 10 flying power armor that don't require an airfield, along with an air crew to constantly provide maintenance to said air field, or one attack jet that does?

Don't get me wrong there is some expensive power armor out there, but flying power armor is more practical to use, and honestly probably easier to train on. A good air field can also be expensive to maintain.

Considering that typical Jet Fighters OUT CLASS typical Flying Power Armor in terms of:
A. maximum altitude (SAMAS working together can only take down a Jet Fighter if the pilot flies to low, those suits typically top out at a few thousand feet vs 60,000ft for jets, even with mini-missiles/guns the Jet pilot only has to fly high enough to out range them but can at the same time keep them in range which is doable)
B. out run (Jet Fighters typically can go supersonic, typical flying power armor can't), which also means those PA are going to have to strike at something moving much faster than them imposing penalties to strike potentially
C. weapons performance in terms of range, Jets typically are armed with SRMs and above, plus the typical gun range is between 4-6000ft on a jet, where fPA is more like 2-4000ft typically. Very few flying PA sport SRMs (IINM only maybe 6 PA exist that can even USE SRMs or above AFAIK in Rifts)
D. Weapon Payload. When using Mini-Missiles, most Jet Fighters easily outclass PA in terms of payload as PA at best have 24 mini's IINM (not ruling out rare case of more), but typical jet fighters AFAIK in Rifts pack that in at minimum, if they even bother to sport this class missile.

Sure jets are quicker and can fly higher, but I can't land my jet on the side of a mountain without some serious construction. Similarly I can't hide my jet in the woods if I see a dragon flying near and want to avoid it. Power armor is smaller, more maneuverable, and more practical for someone to invest in than actual aircraft and some of them have quite the payload.

Fixed wing aircraft are formidable but they have to use their speed and high flying to there advantage if you are gonna use them, thus why I said them filling more of that close air support role helping infantry take out heavy targets and quickly flying away.

sure.

and a sky king costs 1.5 million credits, which i think we can agree is less than the 1.9 million credit forager. south america has a 400,000 credit helicopter. a variety of CS flying vehicles cost around half a million to a million credits each on the black market. a variety of low-altitude flight-capable vehicles (mostly hovercycles and rocketcycles) cost as little as 90,000 credits. a jet pack can cost as little as 30,000 credits. russia has a vehicle called a wingrider that can be as little as 50,000 credits. it can be done cheap. just nobody has done it for some reason.

[dreicunan]

Per Triax 2, even the NGR can't figure out how to field a large, versatile air force even with VTOL capability, because gargoyles and brodkil come at airfields and airplanes like lemmings running off a cliff and don't stop until they are down. I'm not saying that it is good writing (it isn't; if the NGR can't protect an airfield in the center of their territory from gargoyles, how do they protect anything?), but it is canon.

[Shark_Force]

Per Triax 2, even the NGR can't figure out how to field a large, versatile air force even with VTOL capability, because gargoyles and brodkil come at airfields and airplanes like lemmings running off a cliff and don't stop until they are down. I'm not saying that it is good writing (it isn't; if the NGR can't protect an airfield in the center of their territory from gargoyles, how do they protect anything?), but it is canon.

this is fairly trivial to abuse, so it's even worse writing.

all the NGR has to do is set up a total death trap. cram as many explosives into one area as possible. make sure the path to it is nice and clear of anything they can't afford to lose. fortify the location like crazy. have a retreat path prepared. and then let the slaughter commence. if the enemy is willing to be stupid enough to charge headlong to their deaths, you should encourage it. let them charge into the deathtraps you've prepared, set things up so that you're going to lose one soldier for every 5 or 10 or more (the NGR has fairly advanced robotics, so i'm sure they could make sure a large portion of their losses are just drones that they can rebuild), and before long, your opponent won't have an endless supply of gargoyles any more. or they'll have learned that it isn't a good idea to mindlessly charge in like lemmings, and you'll have your airfields plus you'll have inflicted major losses to the gargoyles as well.

[Mack]

Per Triax 2, even the NGR can't figure out how to field a large, versatile air force even with VTOL capability, because gargoyles and brodkil come at airfields and airplanes like lemmings running off a cliff and don't stop until they are down. I'm not saying that it is good writing (it isn't; if the NGR can't protect an airfield in the center of their territory from gargoyles, how do they protect anything?), but it is canon.

this is fairly trivial to abuse, so it's even worse writing.

all the NGR has to do is set up a total death trap. cram as many explosives into one area as possible. make sure the path to it is nice and clear of anything they can't afford to lose. fortify the location like crazy. have a retreat path prepared. and then let the slaughter commence. if the enemy is willing to be stupid enough to charge headlong to their deaths, you should encourage it. let them charge into the deathtraps you've prepared, set things up so that you're going to lose one soldier for every 5 or 10 or more (the NGR has fairly advanced robotics, so i'm sure they could make sure a large portion of their losses are just drones that they can rebuild), and before long, your opponent won't have an endless supply of gargoyles any more. or they'll have learned that it isn't a good idea to mindlessly charge in like lemmings, and you'll have your airfields plus you'll have inflicted major losses to the gargoyles as well.

Not to mention all Triax has to do is keep the bases farther back from the front lines. Europe isn't that big.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I know the passage hes referring to, and when i read it, i just shook my head at how utterly nonsensical and stupid it was. It makes NO sense. Bases several hundred miles inside German airspace should be unassailable, and should ALWAYS have been unassailable by Gargoyles.

You'd have HOURS of Radar warning at a massed attack like that - Gargoyles simply dont fly that fast. Itd be a Turkey Shoot of epic proportions every time with the planes gone HOURS before the Gargoyles could get into range.

One thing Drei got -slightly- wrong was that the "they never had jets because attacks" was past tense; the new Luftwaffe exists because the jets are VTOL and dont need airfields. But it is a 'new development', relatively.

Still makes no sense.

[glitterboy2098]

i've generally assumed that referred mainly to forward airbases.. the NGR is big enough that even with supersonic aircraft, your looking at a fair bit of time to get from the center to the edges (especially if going past the borders into gargoyle territory to any degree)
i mean, your looking at 600-1000 miles in many cases. with most of their fighters, that is a good hour to half hour of flight time even at mach 2

a lot of gargoyle attacks wouldn't last a half hour. so minutes count. hell, seconds count.

most of their military airbases would be within 50-100 miles of the frontlines.. and it wouldn't be hard for a group of gargoyles to sneak an attack on those. remember they have their own robots and such, so their commanders would be aware of things like radar. so they'd know to fly in low near the treetops to try and make themselves harder to detect. not to mention, just land and walk.


the only safe airbases would be those near the heart of the NGR.. ones too far away from the frontlines to allow the aircraft to be used as a reaction force. sure you can put patrols up and such, have planes in the air to react.. but then you have to hope you have the right weapons, and that you have enough patrols up to cover all the incidents. because if you have to call in for more, or need a specific loadout (and the NGr's pod system is a huge help there in getting loaded up fast) you're out of luck.

my analysis of the NGR's problem is the fact they only have one VTOL capable fighter jet.. which is an interceptor. if they had their multirole and strike types with VTOl or even just STOVL, they could use a distributed improvised airfield strategy similar to the swedish Bas-90 plan of modern day.. where the fighters don't need large airbases to operate, and in times of war will get spread around in flight sized units operating off of bits of highway or small underground bunkers.. make it extremely difficult to remove the air power without a massive campaign.

[Shark_Force]

i've generally assumed that referred mainly to forward airbases.. the NGR is big enough that even with supersonic aircraft, your looking at a fair bit of time to get from the center to the edges (especially if going past the borders into gargoyle territory to any degree)
i mean, your looking at 600-1000 miles in many cases. with most of their fighters, that is a good hour to half hour of flight time even at mach 2

a lot of gargoyle attacks wouldn't last a half hour. so minutes count. hell, seconds count.

most of their military airbases would be within 50-100 miles of the frontlines.. and it wouldn't be hard for a group of gargoyles to sneak an attack on those. remember they have their own robots and such, so their commanders would be aware of things like radar. so they'd know to fly in low near the treetops to try and make themselves harder to detect. not to mention, just land and walk.


the only safe airbases would be those near the heart of the NGR.. ones too far away from the frontlines to allow the aircraft to be used as a reaction force. sure you can put patrols up and such, have planes in the air to react.. but then you have to hope you have the right weapons, and that you have enough patrols up to cover all the incidents. because if you have to call in for more, or need a specific loadout (and the NGr's pod system is a huge help there in getting loaded up fast) you're out of luck.

my analysis of the NGR's problem is the fact they only have one VTOL capable fighter jet.. which is an interceptor. if they had their multirole and strike types with VTOl or even just STOVL, they could use a distributed improvised airfield strategy similar to the swedish Bas-90 plan of modern day.. where the fighters don't need large airbases to operate, and in times of war will get spread around in flight sized units operating off of bits of highway or small underground bunkers.. make it extremely difficult to remove the air power without a massive campaign.

well, apparently it's pretty easy to know when and where the gargoyles will attack.

just build an airfield and wait.

so they should be able to get plenty of value out of their patrols.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I dont think Glitterboy realizes how small Germany is.

At its deepest point, it is 433 miles from north to south, and at it's widest point (it is usually narrower), it is 382 miles wide, east to west.

Centrally-located air bases are within ~200 miles of the border at all times, pretty much. At Mach 2 (~1500mph), jets are 8 minutes from being anywhere in the country. (The Wraith low-altitude fighter notwithstanding; but you dont really need the Wraith - its not an interceptor or air-superiority fighter). The Ghost stealth fighter hits Mach 3.5 - a whopping 2600mph - putting them less than 5 minutes out from any hot spot in the country.

The New Luftwaffe could just keep a CAP in the air at all times (remember these are Cyborg pilots wired into their airframes, with jets that need no fuel) and have reinforcements anywhere in minutes.

And a flock of Gargoyles big enough to sack an NGR air base (which has to have its own air defenses to begin with) is not going to avoid radar. They aren't stealthy in any way. Nape of the earth only prevents radar from seeing you if it cant look down on you - and there is no reason the NGR cant have AWACS aircraft in the air 24/7 at altitudes the Gargoyles cant even see, much less target... or simply have Radar emplacements with enough height to see down on the treetops.

[glitterboy2098]

actually i do know. but you have to remember that not only does the NGR encompass a bit different borders than modern day germany, but that their military efforts stretch quite a bit farther than the official lines on the map.

[ShadowLogan]

Sure jets are quicker and can fly higher, but I can't land my jet on the side of a mountain without some serious construction. Similarly I can't hide my jet in the woods if I see a dragon flying near and want to avoid it. Power armor is smaller, more manoeuvrable, and more practical for someone to invest in than actual aircraft and some of them have quite the payload.

Fixed wing aircraft are formidable but they have to use their speed and high flying to there advantage if you are gonna use them, thus why I said them filling more of that close air support role helping infantry take out heavy targets and quickly flying away.

That maybe true about the landing, but what pilot is going to choose to land voluntarily at an unsecured location? If the Jet Pilot has support at the site, PA aren't going to be as big an issue because there are going to be other defenders to contend with.

PA only appear more practical in game because the game mechanic stats are highly slanted and don't really take scale into consideration (that is really a major flaw in the system dating back to the 80s). And the most heavily armed PA is still going to come in lighter than the most heavily armed Jet Fighter, or attack helicopter.

Yes Jet Fighters and PA have their respective roles, I don't dispute that, but in the role of air support the large aircraft (fixed or rotary wing) come out ahead of the flying PA in many ways. The only thing they can't do is land and directly support any ground troops, but then they really aren't intended to do that either (well at least in Rifts, Robotech/Macross2 line...).